What macro lens to get?

andyph666 · 10-01-2011, 01:52 PM

I have the K-5 with Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 50-135 and a Sigma 8-16 incoming. I am looking for a macro lens and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 100mm DFA WR Pentax macro lens. Any ideas what I should choose since I have a few lenses already? Thanks.

**boriscleto** · 10-01-2011, 02:21 PM

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html

I'm sure the DA 35 limited is a very nice lens, but you don't want to buy it as a macro.

andyph666 · 10-01-2011, 02:36 PM

So would you choose the d fa 100 instead?

**boriscleto** · 10-01-2011, 03:56 PM

If I was going to get an AF macro, I would be looking at the Tamron 90mm for about half the price of the D FA unless you really need the WR. Since you already have the 50-135 you can get your feet wet with a Raynox adapter for a fraction of the cost of a macro lens.

andyph666 · 10-01-2011, 05:23 PM

Hey there. I read some reviews on your suggestion. I will get the tamron 90 mm then. Thanks for the help. What does the raynox adapter do? I have checked it out but I haven't really found a description of what it does. Cheers.

**Just1MoreDave** · 10-01-2011, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by andyph666

I have the K-5 with Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 50-135 and a Sigma 8-16 incoming. I am looking for a macro lens and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 100mm DFA WR Pentax macro lens. Any ideas what I should choose since I have a few lenses already? Thanks.

The big difference in using these two is "working distance": how close you are to the subject. They can both reproduce a subject life-size, but you have to get really close for the 35mm, farther away for the 100mm or 90mm as suggested. That makes the DA 35mm f2.8 Limited more of a small, sharp normal lens with macro available, but not ideal for snakes.

Other than working distance and magnification, dedicated macro lenses are very well-corrected, so when the focal length and speed are within a usable range, you can use them for other subjects. So you can choose a focal length where you might also use it for portraits or a normal lens or short telephoto or something else.

RioRico · 10-01-2011, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by andyph666

What does the raynox adapter do? I have checked it out but I haven't really found a description of what it does. Cheers.

A Raynox or other closeup adapter brings the working distance closer, and you get magnification. The DCR-250's working distance is about 5in (125mm). The DCR-150 works at around 6.5-8in (165-205mm). The exact magnification depends on the focal length of the lens the Raynox is mounted on: longer lens = more magnification. Raynox closeup adapters are optically corrected and give noticeably better results than cheap uncorrected +dioptre closeup sets. Those are the basics. All else is mere elaboration.

sterretje · 10-01-2011, 10:42 PM

For macro only, you don't need an AF lens. Often manual focus is preferred. Reason why I have an AF macro is that I also use it as a (light) tele.

newarts · 10-02-2011, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

A Raynox or other closeup adapter brings the working distance closer, and you get magnification. The DCR-250's working distance is about 5in (125mm). The DCR-150 works at around 6.5-8in (165-205mm). The exact magnification depends on the focal length of the lens the Raynox is mounted on: longer lens = more magnification. Raynox closeup adapters are optically corrected and give noticeably better results than cheap uncorrected +dioptre closeup sets. Those are the basics. All else is mere elaboration.

The ~$60 Raynox 250 would be right to get a magnification of 1:1 with your 50-135.. It would take excellent macros of natural subjects like bugs & flowers (that's because it is soft on the edges which doesn't matter with macros of 3D subjects.).

See https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html for example photos...

I have good macro lenses but mostly carry just a raynox in my travel kit in case a macro opportunity arises.

robyn · 11-07-2011, 05:41 PM

I've been pondering the same question, but for newborn photography. I've been doing newborn photography for nearly 3 years, but with macro attachments or my 35mm FA limited. I want more. I want the macro. I found this thread when trying to choose between the 100m and 35mm macro, myself.

I need to be close to baby, but I know the 100mm macro can get me closer than a standard 100mm. I've worked with my dad's 100mm macro/Nikor.

So, any have thoughts if it's a baby we're working with- both natural light and lighting?

Thanks- been wrestling with this decision for months, and want to decide in this business year- preferred sooner rather than later-

robyn · 11-07-2011, 05:42 PM

I have the 50-135mm, too, and even with attachments, it's not what I want.

Thanks =)

dh4412 · 11-07-2011, 05:55 PM

maybe this has been answered already, but does anyone like the manual focusing ring on either the 100wr or the da 35 2.8?

robyn · 11-07-2011, 05:59 PM

the manual focusing ring on the 35mm DA 2.8 (not macro) is fine, easy. i have that one. I do not have the macro version.

robyn · 11-07-2011, 06:21 PM

oh shoot- sorry- I always forget the 35mm is a 2.4 not 2.8. Sorry for confusion. I've been shooting with it a year, and still can't remember that =) Love that lens (minus purple fringing).

I am wondering about the 2.8 macro-

**Just1MoreDave** · 11-07-2011, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by robyn

So, any have thoughts if it's a baby we're working with- both natural light and lighting?

Both 1:1 macros can produce the same maximum magnification, but I vaguely recall that there is a difference in depth of field when you compare two 1:1 shots at the same settings. My guess is that a shorter focal length would have more DOF if all other settings are equal, as a tradeoff for its shorter working distance. If that's true, for natural-light shots you'd want to be at wide apertures, and more DOF would be good. I tried to look this up but got too much other information.

Otherwise, maybe extra working distance and WR would be useful around babies.

10-01-2011, 01:52 PM	#1
andyph666 New Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 8	What macro lens to get? I have the K-5 with Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 50-135 and a Sigma 8-16 incoming. I am looking for a macro lens and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 100mm DFA WR Pentax macro lens. Any ideas what I should choose since I have a few lenses already? Thanks.

11-07-2011, 05:41 PM	#10
robyn New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NorthernMW Posts: 10	But what about for babies? I've been pondering the same question, but for newborn photography. I've been doing newborn photography for nearly 3 years, but with macro attachments or my 35mm FA limited. I want more. I want the macro. I found this thread when trying to choose between the 100m and 35mm macro, myself. I need to be close to baby, but I know the 100mm macro can get me closer than a standard 100mm. I've worked with my dad's 100mm macro/Nikor. So, any have thoughts if it's a baby we're working with- both natural light and lighting? Thanks- been wrestling with this decision for months, and want to decide in this business year- preferred sooner rather than later-

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: PENTAX-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro and Sigma 180mm F/3.5 EX DG IF APO Macro Lens	LenWick	Sold Items	9	06-16-2010 11:09 AM
Streets My first Macro lens, the DFA 100mm Macro WR. Here are my 1st few shots with it!	aaronius	Post Your Photos!	4	04-30-2010 07:23 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma DL Macro Super 70-300mm f/4-5.6 1:2 Macro Lens, Worldwide Ship!	wallyb	Sold Items	10	12-16-2009 10:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tokina 90mm F2.5 AT-X Macro Lens with 1:1 Extender. A Legendary Macro Lens. Bo	frank	Sold Items	12	05-29-2009 05:57 PM
50mm macro lens vs 100mm macro lens. What is your experience?	raider	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	10-28-2007 06:39 PM

10-01-2011, 02:21 PM	#2
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-lens-articles/152336-cheap-macro-b...lose-work.html I'm sure the DA 35 limited is a very nice lens, but you don't want to buy it as a macro.

10-01-2011, 02:36 PM	#3
andyph666 New Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 8 Original Poster	So would you choose the d fa 100 instead?

10-01-2011, 03:56 PM	#4
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	If I was going to get an AF macro, I would be looking at the Tamron 90mm for about half the price of the D FA unless you really need the WR. Since you already have the 50-135 you can get your feet wet with a Raynox adapter for a fraction of the cost of a macro lens.

10-01-2011, 05:23 PM	#5
andyph666 New Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 8 Original Poster	Hey there. I read some reviews on your suggestion. I will get the tamron 90 mm then. Thanks for the help. What does the raynox adapter do? I have checked it out but I haven't really found a description of what it does. Cheers.

10-01-2011, 05:52 PM	#6
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by andyph666 I have the K-5 with Tamron 17-50, Pentax DA 50-135 and a Sigma 8-16 incoming. I am looking for a macro lens and have narrowed it down to the 35mm or 100mm DFA WR Pentax macro lens. Any ideas what I should choose since I have a few lenses already? Thanks. The big difference in using these two is "working distance": how close you are to the subject. They can both reproduce a subject life-size, but you have to get really close for the 35mm, farther away for the 100mm or 90mm as suggested. That makes the DA 35mm f2.8 Limited more of a small, sharp normal lens with macro available, but not ideal for snakes. Other than working distance and magnification, dedicated macro lenses are very well-corrected, so when the focal length and speed are within a usable range, you can use them for other subjects. So you can choose a focal length where you might also use it for portraits or a normal lens or short telephoto or something else.

10-01-2011, 08:42 PM	#7
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by andyph666 What does the raynox adapter do? I have checked it out but I haven't really found a description of what it does. Cheers. A Raynox or other closeup adapter brings the working distance closer, and you get magnification. The DCR-250's working distance is about 5in (125mm). The DCR-150 works at around 6.5-8in (165-205mm). The exact magnification depends on the focal length of the lens the Raynox is mounted on: longer lens = more magnification. Raynox closeup adapters are optically corrected and give noticeably better results than cheap uncorrected +dioptre closeup sets. Those are the basics. All else is mere elaboration.

10-01-2011, 10:42 PM	#8
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	For macro only, you don't need an AF lens. Often manual focus is preferred. Reason why I have an AF macro is that I also use it as a (light) tele.

10-02-2011, 07:07 AM	#9
newarts Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Ames, Iowa, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 2,965	Originally posted by RioRico A Raynox or other closeup adapter brings the working distance closer, and you get magnification. The DCR-250's working distance is about 5in (125mm). The DCR-150 works at around 6.5-8in (165-205mm). The exact magnification depends on the focal length of the lens the Raynox is mounted on: longer lens = more magnification. Raynox closeup adapters are optically corrected and give noticeably better results than cheap uncorrected +dioptre closeup sets. Those are the basics. All else is mere elaboration. The ~$60 Raynox 250 would be right to get a magnification of 1:1 with your 50-135.. It would take excellent macros of natural subjects like bugs & flowers (that's because it is soft on the edges which doesn't matter with macros of 3D subjects.). See https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/74221-raynox-macro-club.html for example photos... I have good macro lenses but mostly carry just a raynox in my travel kit in case a macro opportunity arises.

11-07-2011, 05:42 PM	#11
robyn New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NorthernMW Posts: 10	I have the 50-135mm, too, and even with attachments, it's not what I want. Thanks =)

11-07-2011, 05:55 PM	#12
dh4412 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: connecticut Photos: Gallery Posts: 248	maybe this has been answered already, but does anyone like the manual focusing ring on either the 100wr or the da 35 2.8?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-07-2011, 05:59 PM	#13
robyn New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NorthernMW Posts: 10	the manual focusing ring on the 35mm DA 2.8 (not macro) is fine, easy. i have that one. I do not have the macro version.

11-07-2011, 06:21 PM	#14
robyn New Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: NorthernMW Posts: 10	oh shoot- sorry- I always forget the 35mm is a 2.4 not 2.8. Sorry for confusion. I've been shooting with it a year, and still can't remember that =) Love that lens (minus purple fringing). I am wondering about the 2.8 macro-

11-07-2011, 07:04 PM	#15
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by robyn So, any have thoughts if it's a baby we're working with- both natural light and lighting? Both 1:1 macros can produce the same maximum magnification, but I vaguely recall that there is a difference in depth of field when you compare two 1:1 shots at the same settings. My guess is that a shorter focal length would have more DOF if all other settings are equal, as a tradeoff for its shorter working distance. If that's true, for natural-light shots you'd want to be at wide apertures, and more DOF would be good. I tried to look this up but got too much other information. Otherwise, maybe extra working distance and WR would be useful around babies.